On the framework of the IST european project Ontoweb,
I'm chairing SIG3 about Enterprise-standard ontology environments.
Information about SIG3 can be found at
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/ontoweb/sig-tools/
We also have two mailing lists:
suscribe: ontoweb-sigtools-request@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es
send comments: ontoweb-sigtools@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es
During the last year we have been working on ontoweb and also on that SIG
on the following issues:
.- STate of the art and Comparison study of different kind of ontology
tools. The study includes
11 ontology editors, 6 ontology-based annotation tools, 4 ontology merging
tools,
4 ontology evaluation tools and 14 RDF-based tools.
Tools in the same group were analysed and compared using the same
criteria.
Each tool developer provided us all the information gathered on that
document.
The results of this study is Deliverable 1.3 about ontology tools, which
is available at
http://www.ontoweb.org
.- Benchmarking of diferent kind of ontology tools.
Since this is a complex task, we decided to be focussed on ontology
building tools.
Our goal in SIG3 is to test several dimensions:
* expresivity of the knowledge model,
* intereoperability between tools on the same group and between tools
that belong to different groups,
* exchange ontologies
* quality of the translations generated by the tools.
* navigation with huge ontologies
* learnability and usability of the tool,
* scalability when there exist thousends of instances.
* inference mechanisms,
* ....
We also know that the goal is NOT to rank the tools involved on the
experiments.
The work done until know (and it is not finished yet) is related with
the expressivity.
SIG3 participants have done a toy example on the travelling domain. The
ontology was implemented with different kinds
of ontology building tools:
** DL tools ( Loom, OILEd, OpenKnoME)
** Frame-based + FOL tools ( OntoEdit, Prot